E-8 recapitalization in danger

Despite having performed five studies that all agreed that the E-8 recapitalization program was the way to go forward with battle management, the Air
Force is "examining their options" and there is the very real fear that they will cancel the program outright in the FY19 budget. To date, the Air
Force has spent something on the order of $256M.

An amendment to the FY18 defense budget would prevent them from canceling the program, or using the FY18 budget to retire existing airframes. The Air
Force has said they may cancel the current program and look at their options for going forward "in a different way".

I like your OP's, they're like homework assignments and I always learn something new!
So, like, what's an E-8?
Found out here:en.wikipedia.org...

The Northrop Grumman E-8 Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System (Joint STARS) is a United States Air Force Airborne ground
surveillance, battle management and command and control aircraft. It tracks ground vehicles and some aircraft, collects imagery, and relays tactical
pictures to ground and air theater commanders

From that I learned:

The E-8C is an aircraft modified from the Boeing 707-300 series commercial airliner. The E-8 carries specialized radar, communications,
operations and control subsystems. The most prominent external feature is the 40 ft (12 m) canoe-shaped radome under the forward fuselage that houses
the 24 ft (7.3 m) side-looking APY-7 passive electronically scanned array antenna. The E-8C can respond quickly and effectively to support worldwide
military contingency operations. It is a jam-resistant system capable of operating while experiencing heavy electronic countermeasures. The E-8C can
fly a mission profile for 9 hours without refueling. Its range and on-station time can be substantially increased through in-flight
refueling.

Looking at the pictures I immediately recognized the engine nacelle of the Pratt & Whitney JT8-D219 from the Boeing 707 Airliner. But thankfully,
they upgraded the engine in 2005 so the planes would have more "hang" time. Those original engines were gas hogs.

Further into the article was the meat of the current kerfuffle:

Air Force procurement documents call for a replacement for the Boeing 707-based E-8C as a "business jet class" airframe that is "significantly
smaller and more efficient."[7] Current pre-decisional requirements are for an aircraft with a 10-13 person crew with a 3.96–6.1 m (13.0–20.0 ft)
radar array. Though smaller than the crew and radar size of the E-8C, it could be challenging to meet those demands in a typical business jet and
could require a relatively large platform. The staffing and sensor requirements are comparable to the cancelled Northrop Grumman E-10 MC2A, which was
originally planned as the E-8's replacement. The Air Force plans to award a contract at the end of FY 2016, a relatively quick pace partly to avoid
budget redistributions to other programs. Replacing the E-8C avoids nearly $11 billion in operations and sustainment costs needed to keep the fleet
relevant and airworthy.[8] The aircraft is to fly at 38,000 ft for eight hours.

So.....it sounds like you have to spend money to save money.

Interesting business. They've spent $256 Million to get.......nowhere? Or is the M for thousands? God, I hope its thousands!

Most of the money has gone into the new radar. The plan is to develop the radar, and to test as many bugs out of it before it ever gets installed on
the aircraft. Both Raytheon and Northrop are developing a radar, and the bidding teams can choose between them.

Most of the money has gone into the new radar. The plan is to develop the radar, and to test as many bugs out of it before it ever gets installed on
the aircraft. Both Raytheon and Northrop are developing a radar, and the bidding teams can choose between them.

It hasn't gotten that far yet. They should be fitting it by spring of next year, if not earlier. They might be using a pair of Marine Gulfstream
aircraft. There have been two parked by the Raytheon hangar for a couple months now.

AWST article on this mentioned they wanted a more 'Survivable" platform. My initial response was WTF. The only platform that would fit this would be
adding it to a BUFF of if they can figure out the electrical generation issues a B-1. Otherwise NO commercial solution would be "Survivable" in a
remotely contested environment.

I really think we need to reassess the USAF's role when it comes to ground support. They clearly don't want the role and they should relinquish that
to the US Army IMHO

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.